Tag: Media

Last week, Gerry Sutcliffe, Minister for Sport in the United Kingdom, announced proposals to make significant changes to the existing legislative framework under which remote gambling is regulated. Following a review of the system of online gambling regulation in Great Britain by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a consultation is being launched with a view to introducing laws requiring all online operators to apply for a license from the Gambling Commission in order to either advertise or provide gambling services to British consumers. According to the Minister for Sport, the proposed changes were “necessary to ensure the protections in the Gambling Act – to keep gambling crime free, to ensure gambling is fair and open, and to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected from harm – continue to be afforded to British consumers.”

Under the proposals, a license will be required even if the gambling services are offered to British consumers using remote gambling equipment from outside Great Britain. Currently, only operators based and licensed in the UK are allowed to advertise in the UK, unless the country in which they are based is either a member state of the EEA or on the government’s “whitelist.” More information on the “whitelist” is available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website, but to give you some insight, territories currently on the list are Antigua and Barbuda, Tasmania, the States of Alderney and the Isle of Man. “Whitelisting” is the process used by the UK Ministry to assess the regulatory framework for gambling in any jurisdictions outside the EEA that apply for permission to advertise their services within the UK.

As well as being obliged to share information about suspicious betting patterns with the UK’s sports governing bodies and the Gambling Commission, foreign operators would also have to comply with British license requirements concerning the protection of children and vulnerable people, and contribute to the research, education and treatment of problem gambling in the UK.

This appears to be a move by the UK government to close a loophole in the laws that protect online gamblers in the UK, and that more closely mirror the more protectionist regime in the United States. If this extension of the licensing regime is introduced into legislation, it will be interesting to see how the regulator intends to enforce the license scheme against gambling companies with no UK presence. In the United States, enforcement has involved a variety of “indirect” mechanisms, from the Department of Justice’s use of the Interstate Wire Act of 1951, which applies to sports betting to assert jurisdiction over online gaming – even though the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2002 that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting – to seizing advertising payments made to broadcast networks by advertisers seeking to promote online gambling considered illegal by the United States. Since 2006, with the enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), the United States has sought to seize assets in financial institutions tied to online gambling, based on what it considers illegal activity, money laundering and a variety of other offenses. It is noteworthy that UIGEA does not make online gambling illegal per se, but rather prohibits any transfer of funds from a financial institution (as defined in the legislation) to an illegal Internet gambling site.

Once you read the UK Sports Ministry’s announcement, if you need more information, contact Laura Hicks, an associate in the Media and Technology team, in our London office. Of course, you can always contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum in New York, or Gregor Pryor in London, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work, if you need legal advice, information or support on this subject.

In a tradition that started almost 4,000 years ago by the ancient Babylonians – although they celebrated the new year upon seeing the first new moon after the vernal equinox – please enjoy a very happy, safe and joyous new year celebration. Those of you who look forward to Useless But Compelling Facts can read more about the history of new year celebrations, or how the new year’s festivities, now televised around the world, began in New York’s Times Square.

This is the first year we have published in a blog format, and with your feedback – mostly positive and always constructive – and more than 17,000 visitors in slightly less than 11 months, I am grateful and appreciative for your support. Thank you for reading Legal Bytes.

In case you weren’t able to attend any of our three seminars on Social Media, we’ll still let you get a glimpse of what you missed. First, you missed Joe Rosenbaum and Anthony Traymore in San Francisco and Palo Alto, and in Century City (L.A.), where we were joined by Kate O’Brien, where we presented: “Social Media: It’s 10:00 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Brand Is?”

If that alone didn’t make you sad, you also missed all the substantive insights and experiences that were shared, the audio-visual effects, the examples and live experience of our presenters and local hosts, as well as the hospitality of three of Rimon’s West Coast offices.

What you don’t have to miss is a copy (in PDF form) of the presentations – each of which had slight variations. You can see and download each by selecting the live link on each city below.

While the base presentations were much the same in all three places, in San Francisco we focused a bit more on social media in financial services and corporate securities law. In Silicon Valley (Palo Alto), we did a somewhat deeper dive into the implications of social media in online gaming and entertainment, and in Century City, we focused on user-generated content, open-forum platforms and competitive advertising.

While the results are still being tabulated, we do know that a significant number of our clients and guests received continuing legal education credit (CLE) for attending, in addition to a meal – worth the price of free admission anywhere. We haven’t looked at all the evaluations yet either, but no one fell asleep, everyone stayed through the closing credits and a rousing rendition of the Social Media Blues, and many of our attendees stayed for follow-up questions.

We also received a number of inquiries about the possibility of individual companies or groups hosting a Social Media seminar presented by Rimon, and we are happy to do so for yours – we are an accredited CLE provider in most jurisdictions, if that is important to the legal folks – but many have asked about presenting to senior executives, business development, marketing, media and other professionals as well.

Not only can we tailor a seminar to your particular company, your brands and/or your industry, but we have developed, and will continue to develop, modules and focused presentation materials regarding online gaming and virtual worlds; promotions (e.g., sweepstakes, contests, product placements, branded entertainment); advertising and marketing (e.g., testimonials, endorsements, buzz, viral and word-of-mouth); labor and employment; corporate policy, public relations and crisis management; financial services; media and entertainment, including motion pictures and machinima; pharmaceutical, health and life sciences; technology and e-commerce; digital rights management (e.g., user-generated content, hybrid media); privacy, data protection and security; target marketing, location-based and behavioral advertising; regulatory requirements – both government and SRO (e.g., FTC, FCC, CSPC, FDA, PCI compliance, FACTA, GLB, HIPAA); cloud computing, and so much more – and we haven’t even mentioned our international or global experience, expertise or resources in other jurisdictions around the world.

If you are interested, please contact me (Joseph I. Rosenbaum) and we can work with you to help you engage us in your social media conversation with topics that are relevant to you. We will also be updating the research work already released in our Social Media White Paper with some of the materials and further work we continue to do in this area. Stay tuned – social media is not a fad.

In 1904, the already acclaimed American novelist Jack London published The Sea-Wolf, a dramatic and powerful adventure story about a sea captain and the survivors he has rescued after an ocean collision. But then, that’s not news is it? What is news is the fact that two film producers in Germany, almost at the same time, recently produced films based on that novel, AND both used the German translation “Der Seewolf” as the title of their films. Really? Both of them? Yes, really.

Well it turns out that one of these producers had previously created a television production of Der Seewolf back in 1971. So that producer (we’ll call him Number 1) went to court in Munich demanding that the other producer (we’ll call him Number 2) relinquish the title and recognize the priority of the title in Number 1 – based on his earlier work and concerning the use of that name for his new film. But, as they say, the plot thickens. The defendant – producer Number 2 – had also applied for a German trademark registration after announcing his production in the film press in Germany.

Much like the psychological drama unfolding in the Jack London novel, the court decided that Number 2 must withdraw the trademark application and is prohibited from distributing the film using the name “Der Seewolf” or “Seewolf,” because Number 1 already has priority. You see, the 1971 work continues to enjoy re-runs and re-broadcasts so that, according to the court, copyright protection of the title “Der Seewolf” continues to exist for the benefit of Number 1. Not only that, but since the titles were identical and were based on the same novel, the court of course also concluded that there is a direct and clear likelihood of confusion – a key ingredient for a claim of trademark infringement. Following that logic, you might think that the requirements for both a copyright and a trademark infringement claim exist, so Number 2 is prohibited from using the title. However, quite unhappy about this state of affairs, Number 2 decided to appeal the ruling.

Now this is where truth becomes stranger than the underlying fiction, even though justice may well have been served in both the Jack London novel and this tale of two producers. The Higher Regional Court of Munich reversed the decision of the lower court, deciding that Number 2 is absolutely still entitled to publicize and distribute a cinematographic work using the title “Der Seewolf” or “Seewolf.” The court did not dispute that Number 1, as the legitimate user of the title dating back to 1971, had the right to bring an action against Number 2. You see in Germany, any legitimate user of the title of a work has the right to assert a claim to protect that title. Even further, the High Court agreed there indeed was a strong risk of confusion between the works given the 1971 title “Der Seewolf” and the new title “Der Seewolf” or “Seewolf,” since they were identical. So far so good.

BUT, the High Court didn’t stop there. You see, also under § 23, No. 2 of the German Trademark Act, the legitimate owner or user of a business mark (the title of a cinematographic work falls within the definition of business marks) cannot prohibit anyone else from also using an identical mark, as long as is it is used to describe the characteristics or properties of the goods or services (and, of course, unless there is some moral or public policy reason to create a restriction). Well, as you might have guessed, the Higher Court in Munich found no moral or public policy issue, AND it was their opinion that the titles were both descriptive: both films were adaptations of the same Jack London novel, The Sea-Wolf, and both titles were simply descriptive translations derived from that work.

So we end up with the curious situation (and result) in which it is true that Number 1 has the right to claim protection for the title “Der Seewolf” as an adaptation of the original Jack London novel based on the 1971 use of that title, but Number 1 also has to accept the legal conclusion that the exact same title may be used by anyone else producing an adaptation of that same novel!

What can we learn from this? First, intellectual property laws are different around the world, so don’t assume rights or protections without consulting legal experts and advisors who appreciate and understand the differences. Second, always remember that intellectual property, by definition, is a creature of specific laws and statutes. As with patents, rights in trademarks and copyright arise, and are interpreted and enforced under the specific laws of the jurisdiction involved. For example, aspirin is no longer a protected trademark in the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries – the victim of “genericide.” But “Aspirin” remains a protected trademark in Germany, Canada and a host of other countries. Further, copyright laws protect against copying, not original creation, so two or more individuals, independently creating two identical works (without copying), would each be entitled to copyright protection, with neither able to stop the other – whether for paintings, novels or computer software programs. Besides, copyright protection is not forever. Jack London’s rights in The Sea Wolf copyright expired and his novel is publicly available. By adapting, translating or using a descriptive name to refer to these films, neither of the producers was able to claim exclusive rights to the use of the title, any more than Jack London’s heirs could claim the copyright still existed.

So when it comes to intellectual property rights, don’t assume, and do consult an expert. If you want to know more, just contact Katharina Weimer in Rimon’s Munich office or Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum in New York, or any of the Rimon lawyers you work with. We are happy to help.

Veoh Networks, which makes both professionally created programming content and entertainment, as well as user-generated content, available through its website, has often lived in the shadow of Google, YouTube, and Apple’siTunes. Earlier this week, Veoh got a bit of sunshine.

Two years ago, Universal Music Group (a company owned by Vivendi SA), sued Veoh for copyright infringement. The suit alleged that Veoh’s business was essentially based on the infringing use of copyrighted works of others, notably from Universal’s viewpoint, musical groups and artists.

Veoh countered with the fact that it used filtering technology to detect and remove protected content and, in the words of Judge Matz, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, when Veoh “did acquire knowledge of allegedly infringing material . . . . it expeditiously removed such material . . .,” vindicating Veoh supporters who have consistently maintained Veoh is protected by the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This is the second time the legal sun has shone on Veoh. A similar lawsuit brought by Io Group, an adult entertainment company, was also decided in favor of Veoh last year.

Legal Bytes has previously reported the criteria necessary to comply with the DMCA (you did read that, right?), thus you know that a key requirement for insulation from liability for copyright infringement under the DMCA is the question of whether, when a company becomes aware of infringing content, it promptly removes it from use and display. The California Court rules that Veoh had done just that, and consequently the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA served to protect Veoh from liability in this case. Judge Matz’ order notes: "The DMCA does not place the burden of ferreting out infringement on the service provider". You can read the full text of the Summary Judgment Order of the California Court.

Universal is expected to appeal, claiming the Judge’s order fails to adequately take into account Universal’s claim that everyone connected with Veoh must have known about rampant infringement and that alone should sustain the ‘knowledge’ which would remove the shield from their entire business model – a shield otherwise available to web hosting companies. However, it may well be an uphill battle since the Court specifically addressed this issue, noting “If such general awareness were enough to raise a ‘red flag,’ the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose".

If you are concerned you don’t know enough about digital rights management; compliance with the provisions of the DMCA; about liability applicable to website owners and operators or the rights available to content owners, the Advertising Technology & Media group at Rimon is for you. Try us. You might like us. Feel free to call me or, if you are already a client, call the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

In an attempt to lure film and television production back to New York from cheaper or more tax-advantaged locations such as Canada and Europe where they have been headed in recent years, New York has passed a bill offering tax cuts to benefit films and television shows produced in New York, although the bill does not extend to commercial productions. The Empire State Film Production Credit Program, signed into law on September 28, provides a tax credit for 10 percent of the production costs of feature films and episodic television programs produced by companies that spend 75 percent or more of their facility-related production costs at a qualifying production facility within New York. The law also allows New York City to offer additional incentives, including a 5 percent tax credit on projects, credits for outdoor media marketing, and assistance with story development, scouting, vendor discounts and consulting.

In a related development, the UK has enacted new permanent and more generous tax relief for small British films to replace the old Section 48 relief, which is scheduled to expire in July 2005. The new tax relief applies to 100 percent of a film’s UK production and raises the “small” film budget for qualifying purposes from £15m to £20m. Qualifying films will be entitled to government subsidies worth up to £4m per film under the new law, and film productions with budgets of up to £20m will receive a tax waiver on their production costs, including overseas costs—subject to the condition that the film actually makes a profit. The government subsidies, worth up to 20 percent of the film’s budget, will be paid directly to the producers on completion of the film. Under current Section 48 regulations, subsidies went to third parties who funded the films. Now they will be paid directly to the film makers.

The British tax relief announcement comes on the heels of a recent (February 10, 2004) clamp-down on some of the UK’s largest tax equity film funds. Set up as sale-and-leaseback deals, these funds allowed British investors to acquire marketing rights to studio films in Britain, the United States and Canada, and enabled investors to write off the cost as an upfront tax loss and lease the films back to the studios for periodic payments over 15 or 20 years. The deals often provided an option for a studio buy-out after a shorter period of time, but those exit strategies were banned by the UK’s Inland Revenue in what has come to be referred to in the film industry as “Black Tuesday.” On that day, the Inland Revenue issued a tax rule change closing a loophole that allowed these funds to operate outside the existing Section 48 film tax break and permitted claiming production costs as tax losses. As if intent on delivering a one-two punch, in March the UK followed this with a prohibition against print and advertising funds that were bankrolling distribution of features from some of the major motion picture studios.

Critics point out that the consequences of these bans could be a dramatic decrease in films produced and shot in the UK, already reeling from a strong pound sterling and increased competition for film financing. We can only assume the newly announced Section 48 incentives, with its direct production credits and other attributes, scheduled to take effect in July 2005 when the current scheme expires, are intended to attempt to repair some of the tax damage done. Combining our poor sense of humor, film and legal expertise, we can only say, “The jury is still out; stay tuned: film at 11:00”!

Last month we reported the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Grokster and Streamcast Networks were not violating copyright laws by making software that allows people to swap digital content. Just a few days ago, over the objections from the motion picture, broadcast and professional sports industries, the FCC approved technology allowing digital recording services like TiVo to transmit television programming to subscribers over the Internet, allowing programming, for example, to be viewed anywhere an Internet connection was available. Digital recording services and streaming programs remotely threatens local advertising relevance and revenue, while still allowing viewers to edit out commercials. Advertisers are you paying attention??

In what may be a momentous ruling and certainly a setback to the music, film and entertainment industry’s effort to fight illegal on-line downloading and file swapping, on August 19, the three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found that Grokster and Streamcast Networks were not violating the copyright laws merely because they made software available that allows people to trade digital content (e.g., movies, music). To be clear, the decision in no way condones copyright infringement, nor changes the law relating to the illegal use or theft of copyrighted materials, nor authorizes anyone to ignore the intellectual property rights of others. But harkening back to cases which look and feel (pun intended) much like the Sony Betamax cases years ago, the court ruled that this particular type of software—referred to as “file sharing” software—was designed in such a way that it could not be held illegal.

It is noteworthy that this is the same court that essentially brought Napster to its knees a few years ago with an exactly opposite conclusion. While critics will argue that the ruling is a descriptive guide to designing software that can avoid being caught in the web (another pun) of the Copyright Act, many others welcomed the ruling for bringing clarity to a murky area of the law and focusing on the distinctions which make some software and systems infringing, while others are not. For you technical gurus in the audience, the court found it significant that neither Grokster nor Streamcast used centralized databases or computer systems with programming file directories pointing to files on individual users’ computers—in other words, these systems didn’t direct other people (and couldn’t even intercept or prevent people) to actual or potentially pirated music, film or any other content. As with the Betamax cases, the court also found that although there were plenty of arguments (and evidence) provided in entertainment industry briefs noting that the vast majority of content exchanged by these programs was illicitly copied, the software Grokster and Morpheus (the software licensed by Streamcast), had other substantial non-infringing uses and thus could not be held illegal as a matter of law.